2B Negligence (complete) Flashcards
What is negligence?
A breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to a claimant.
What must be proved?
There is a duty of care, a breach of that duty and causation.
What is Lord Atkin’s definition of neighbour?
Any person(s) who are closely and directly affected by my acts or omissions.
Donoghue v Stevenson ratio
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee might injure your neighbour.
Describe the Caparo test
Was the damage/harm reasonably foreseeable (Kent v Griffiths)?
Is there sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant (yes in Osman v Ferguson, no in Bourhill v Young)?
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D (Hill v CC of West Yorkshire and Robinson)?
Ratio of Kent v Griffiths
It was reasonably foreseeable that if the ambulance was late, this would cause further harm to the victim.
Ratio of Osman v Ferguson
There was proximity between the police and victim because the police knew he was a possible victim.
Ratio of Bourhill v Young
No proximity between Mrs B an the motorcyclist as she was not involved in the accident.
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire ratio
It was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the grounds of public policy. This would lead t defensive policing and open the ‘floodgates’ to more claimants.
Robinson ratio
The police owe a duty of care to protect an individual from danger they caused themselves
What is the test for breach of duty?
The reasonable man test
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co ratio
“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
What are the categories for the degree of skill?
(Adult) professionals, adults, adult learners and children.
Degree of skill- professionals
Professionals are judged against other professionals except in Bolitho where refusing to intubate the child was no illogical so there was no breach.
Degree of skill- adults
The defendant is judged against the standards of a reasonably competent person doing the same activity (Wells v Cooper).
Degree of skill- learners
Even a learner is expected to take the same standard of care of the ordinary average driver (Nettleship v Weston).
Degree of skill- children
Children are less careful than adults so the standard is lower, in Mullins v Richards the risk is not one that a reasonable 15 year old would appreciate.
What risks must be considered in breach?
Claimant’s special characteristics, the size of the risk, precautions (cost) and the public benefit in taking the risk.
Risks- claimant’s characteristics
Anyone vulnerable increases the likelihood that the defendant has breached their duty (Paris v Stepney Borough Council).
Risks- size of risk
Low risk (Bolton v Stone), high risk (Miller v Jackson).
Risks- adequate precautions
Were the precautions taken reasonable, in Latimer v AEC, the risk could only have been eliminated by closing the factory which was an unreasonable cost to the defendant.
Risks- public benefit in taking the risk
It may be excusable to take some risk if the task in hand is socially important or D is acting in an emergency (Day v High Performance Sports).
Describe factual causation
The ‘but for’ test (White) tests whether the victim would’ve suffered the damage without the defendant’s actions. In Barnett v Chelsea Hospital the test failed because it wasn’t the factual cause of death.
Legal causation stages
Intervening acts (the claimant, a third party and nature), remoteness of damage and the eggshell-skull (thin skull) rule
